I can't stomach being evil.

Remove all ads!

Don't get me wrong, at times I want to play an evil character in all these D&D RPGs, but these games really aren't set up for real villainy (Torment stands apart, but not by all that much).

The reason I can't stomach it is due to the pettiness of the evil you're allowed via dialogue, e.g. "there'd better be a reward for this" and "that is none of my concern". Most of the times you're just being an abusive jerk. No room for true environmental-dooming mastermind villainy. Often I decide for a dialogue option that actually "reward" with me with points towards Good, because the Evil dialogue option is just too pathetic for my taste.

Also, you can't explain the game that you might undertake an action, quest or path of dialogue that might at face value appear to serve goodness, while what you are really intending is playing along for a greater act of evil later. Yes, the NPCs will be fooled, but the game still awards you points toward Good, even though your motivation is far from it.

I've tried several times in a handful of these games to play an evil character, but I rarely get more than an hour in before it just seems pathetic. And thinking about it I can see the reasons:

- Classically speaking, Evil is pro-active, while Good is re-active. The dragon pro-actively kidnaps the princess, making the hero(es) re-actively slay it and rescue her. In a harmonic world Good has nothing to do (not worth making a game about anyway, unless Farmville rocks your boat). It is up to Evil to stir the waters. And these games with a more or less strict story-line simply don't allow for such pro-active actions.

- The story-lines are heavily weighted towards the classic hero's journey, i.e. you're supposed to be the one freeing the world of some sinister naughtiness. It is usually only at the end you might get the option to usurp the villain's place, which leads to an alternate end of game cinematic - that's it.

- The restriction of what you can actually do in a game world are the shackles that prevent Evil. Evil is far more imaginative than Good (relates to the pro- vs re-action). There are many ways you could be evil; build a tower dedicated to demonic research, grab a piece of land to set up a base for further conquest, curse or plague a town, travel far and wide in the Planes in search of knowledge and power to further wicked schemes, etc., etc..

Some day, as machine power allows for more and more detail and scope, we will see a game that allows for truly imaginative and great Evil to flourish, but these current games fall short. And that is not a derision, merely an observation.

 

No, I haven't played that expansion, but you seem to suggest I should. I'll ask a friend of mine to let me borrow it.

Please, no spoilers.

 

Yes and No.

In many ways evil seems in classic settings, to be more imaginative but it is arguably less so.

Research is generally a tool-how it is *used* defines if something is good or evil.

There are a litany of social good or evils in both the real and many game worlds that already exist and the imaginative character has to both notice and decide if he wants to fight them.

Yes there is typical shortsighted greed as the NWN2 "evil" for this game.

But are there times when a usurper in a kingdom may do more good than the original king. Maybe bringing more justice for the common folk or less of a hierarchy in what can be very hierarchical/authoritarian governments/kingdoms.

Or, granted this is "re-active", but there have been times when a king was seen as a tyrant for imposing taxes and doing massive military spending (forts and fortresses) but it was the only effective way to defend the kingdom from raiders that plagued it for over a generation. Is the king a tyrant, rescuer, or something else?

 

The infinity engine games do give you the freedom to perform very "evil" deeds, you just don't often get rewards or even recognition for doing them. Which, if you think about it, makes sense (ie, the story would change since every goody-two shoes in the game would go after you instead. Though I agree that even the tiniest bit of acknowledgement would have been nice).
Same for the NWN series. In BG2, you can save everyone in town and then quietly summon a rampaging demon and leave. You can cast spells outdoors simply to incite the wrath of the Cowled Wizards, prompting them to send their strongest wizards after you. You then proceed to playfully murder those people, increasing your own knowledge in the process (you do get lots of XP for killing them).

Anyway, alignment in these games tend to be more tied to public reputation and recent deeds instead of motive and long-term goals. Which is why, in NWN2, Ammon Jerro is Neutral Evil.

 

The problem in most games that evil usually boils down to either to short-sighted greed or being a psycho. It's all very hamfisted, generally.

It bugged the hell out of me when for instance Morgan in DA:O commented against helping that castle when it was attacked by darkspawn, even though it makes a lot of sense in the bigger picture of you trying to garner support for your cause. That you may use this later on to topple the ruler and install yourself on the throne apparently isn't something you can explain to her.

It could be argued that this is not really evil, but what is? It makes more sense than the short-sighted greed option, though both are selfish in a way. But I guess that typically the more sensable kind of evil falls out of the scope of a game. You can't take Sarevok's place in BG and you can't side with the slavers in SoA. You can murder the entire population in Athkatla, but while that could be considered evil, it's just stupidly evil and makes no sense unless your PC is a total raving lunatic.

The Witcher has better choices in this respect. There's no good or evil, just things that you might consider right or not. Neutrality has an actual effect here too. It feels much more normal than the black and white choices in the typical D&D worlds.

 

Have any of you played any of the evil modules for either neverwinter nights? Just wondering how they stack up agaisnt the rest of the games to be honest.

 

I'm not sure that is a good example of being evil. Especially when you consider the number of times you get attacked in the streets. It really annoys me when the enemy who attacks me starts casting spells, and if I cast any spell protections or even if a contingency goes off, the Coweled Wizards show up and only attack ME, not both sides. You'd think they would go after the spellcasters that caused the disturbance as well, especially after the cutscene with Imoen at the end of chapter 1.

I don't even consider it murder. I see it as self defense. Unlike with Imoen, they aren't even trying to capture me, they are trying to KILL me. They don't ask for surrender, they just say "For ignoring our warning, you are sentenced to death" and afterwards they don't even do that much, they just port in and attack. I see no reason why I can't kill them.

Does that attitude mean that I, Slickrcbd (and not a character, certainly not the BG protagonist) am actually chaotic neutral rather than the chaotic good I've always believed myself to be.

 

I don't know about you, but when I play evil I annoy them on purpose just so I could have free XP. Sometimes I arrange to have my mage bait them so they port right into an elaborately set trap, and after a few castings of Web or Emotion or Chaos I proceed to take my time killing them. It's fun to kill things with a mage dual-wielding daggers, and THAC0 is not an issue since the prone/webbed statuses impose heavy penalties to AC. They die slowly, but surely, and the sheer amount of weapon hits (and the accompanying sound effects, both from your target and the sound of your weapon hitting home) makes it all the more enjoyable. Poison is optional. You can speed things up a bit by casting Cloudkill to disrupt their spellcasting and then using Spell Immunity to protect yourself. Also optional.

Now moving back out from that perspective, all that can make the seemingly innocent action of inciting the wrath of cowled wizards a lot more evil than most of the things you get to do in-game. I guess my point is that choosing, labeling or naming evil actions is similar but not actually the same as playing evil. Motive counts with the latter. I don't think your character, who only ends up killing them in self-defense, is evil. Mine definitely is, though.

 

I'd think a chaotic neutral stance would be to go "screw this, the "use magic and die" law is stupid. I"ll just ignore it and kill anybody that tries to kill me.

Not exactly evil, but not of the good. Definitely not lawful.

Then there is "They kidnapped Imoen and now want me to pay them money for the privilege of using magic? I don't think so. If you come after me I'll defend myself, but I"m not going to refrain from using magic to appease you. Not after showing how corrupt you are. I don't recognize your authority.

 

Done very rarely, perhaps. But if someone starts doing things like this consistently then that's definitely chaotic evil imo.

 

You're definitely touching on something fundamental about my point, that you can rationalize practically every action to fit a number of alignments - even to the point of having opposites (good/evil; lawful/chaotic) lay the ground for the same action. But you can't explain the game why you undertake a certain action, it just interprets your action at face value.

Let's try an interpretation of all nine alignments with regards to the Cowled Wizards' anti-magic law and enforcement thereof:

L/G: Lawful characters are not required to follow any and every law blindly, especially not Good characters if the law is cruel. And religious characters have the law of their god set higher in their mindset than that of mortal men. Opposing the oppressive anti-magic law with the intention of learning more of the Cowled Wizards and through that learn of Imoen's and Irenicus' imprisonment is justifiable. It could be argued that a L/G character should go through proper authority channels, but if he deems the whole system oppressive, he must act against.

L/N: Things get narrow here, and it would probably take a religious character here to set his god's law above that of the Cowled Wizards and the town. A character strongly opposed to magic users ruling in any form could also be justified. But an argument can be made that the justice Irenicus must be made to face for his actions takes priority over all other law concerns.

L/E: These characters abuse system and order for their own ends, and are in fact the ones least likely to break with the Cowled Wizard law. They can squeeze in under the same arguments that can be made for L/N characters, but their aim is revenge rather than justice.

N/G: Simple, laws do not get in the way of the greater good - Irenicus must be stopped.

True N: Magic is part of the natural balance of things, its suppression by the Cowled Wizards is disruptive to this balance. Thus they will not deter you from pursuing the end of the imbalance that is Irenicus and his work.

N/E: Needs no justification in this instance. They're in the way.

C/G: Pretty much the same as N/G, though more centered on yourself - for your own sake, nevermind the greater good.

C/N: Well, hey, you felt like it.

C/E: Needs no justification in this instance. They're in your way.

 

From Gygax -

Lawful -- The needs of the society outweigh the needs of the individual.
Chaos -- Individual rights and freedoms outweigh society requirements.
Good -- Giving, selfless.
Evil -- Selfish, seeks owns gain in all things.

The Cowled Wizards prevent the unauthorized use of magic within the city. Note that is unauthorized, even beneficial magics are prohibited. This means that even LG characters may use magic and defy the Cowled Wizards if they believe the use of such magic is beneficial to the populace. On the other hand, it's just a hell of lot easier to pay the paltry fee of 5,000 gp to use magic whenever and whereever you want (which would be the preferred method for LN characters).